Assange has, unfortunately, been very bad for wikileaks. I think a lot of people support the idea of wikileaks, but his involvement and his serving as the public face of the group has been a huge problem for the organization. If wikileaks survives (which seems unlikely right now) it will be despite him, not because of him.

Julian, for the good of the cause you've championed, please step down from wikileaks.

I am not sure about the integral effect on it. It brings attention to Wikileaks, good or gad, and I think that people who are in position to leak do not care much of Assange is accused of rape.

Wikileaks is a messenger, in contrary to news media, it does not editorialize (well, they were withholding some leaks at the request of (who? I forgot), but that hardly counts), and in this case it does not matter how grey sexual mores of it's leadership are.

It's not even the accusation of rape. It's his entirely anti-government stance. The man seems to want the world in flames. Wikileaks needs someone who expresses genuine concern for both people and governments and really wants them to improve, rather than roll over and die.

In any movement there needs to be a degree of professionalism to the movement. The problem with a lot of these modern movements is the vilification of their opponents, because doing it this way is the easiest way to get a quick (large) group or radicals together. But in the grand scheme of things it does little to solve the problem because the moderates thou opponents are feeling personally attacked by the group.

The idea of "I don't believe in what you are saying, but I will fight for the right for you t

I am one of those people who dislikes the Tea Party and OWS and I don't call them idiotic because I dislike them, I dislike them because I think they're idiotic. Let's start with the Tea Party. Tying the debt ceiling to budget negotiations and then not compromising by an inch and voluntarily walking to the brink of default is extreme and idiotic. We borrowed the money, we spent it, and now we need to pay it back. Period.

I've read a lot of the OWS stories and a lot of them really do sound like "I don't ha

"I don't have money but other people have money, that's unfair!" is bullshit spin and you know it. People are complaining that they have less money than they used to, and that the people with money are at fault, which is, in every meaningful way, true.

Worker productivity has been going up steadily since the Industrial Revolution, but the same workers' wages, in real dollars, have leveled off and stayed flat for the past thirty or forty years. The country is getting richer, but the people actually doing the work to make it so haven't been. And look, the whole time, the people RUNNING the country have been getting richer FASTER THAN THE COUNTRY HAS. Gee, wherever shall we point the finger of blame?

Meanwhile, recent college grads haven't been able to get jobs regardless of their degree, because companies are only hiring people whoalready have jobs. Companies run by those aforementioned People With Money.

In short: "I don't have money because powerful people took it from me." Sounds like a legitimate gripe to me. You can try to prove it's not true, but you can't just dismiss it out of hand.

You could also say that Wikileaks has been very bad for Assange. Do you think that anyone serving as the public face for an organisation that has embarrassed the US military, diplomats and government would not have been made to look as bad as possible?

It doesnt help when you try to resist extradition on really flaky grounds (as if it would be easier to bring him from Sweden to the US than from the UK, if that were the goal). Hes really making all of this a zillion times bigger than it needed to be by trying to make a tragic hero out of himself. We all knew he would end up in court over the rape allegations eventually.

It seems like there are a lot of people who would continue to deny any possibility that Assange has personal failings no matter what the

Assange's organization didn't embarrass the us military, diplomats and government. Traitors, snitches and moles did. They are the ones who should be demonized and bastardized, not to mention strung up and flayed.Assange is no more guilty of "causing" these problems than the newspaper reporter that printed what Scooter Libby told him about Valerie Plame.

The government didn't go after the reporter, they went after Scooter Libby. He's the one that leaked the information and is ultimately the criminal who is re

If he steps down, then the US government wins. If you've been paying attention, the whole thing smacks of government conspiracy. There mysteriously wasn't enough evidence to justify his being questioned while he was still in Sweden, there wasn't enough to justify him being required to stay in the country, but suddenly when he leaves there's enough evidence to justify abusing Interpol to get him arrested and extradited back to Sweden.

What I'm curious about is, what sort of a person could Wikileaks find that

If he'd pulled this trick during the cold war, he would have had a mysterious "car accident" in the country late at night with lots of empty bottles and a young male prostitute in the car with him. That.45 caliber wound to his head would have obviously been from the steering wheel, of course.

Now they just set him up on a phony charge for not requesting sexual relations via the Swedish government-approved triplicate form. What's next, claiming he killed someone with secondhand smoke, or arresting him for going over his personal carbon cap?

Actually.... I decided this morning to do some reading up on the allegations. The stories sound fairly bad, and damning, and paint a picture of a rather strange and misogynistic individual.... as long as you ignore a few bits that don't make sense, like "Mrs A" indicating a paranoid fear that he purposefully "tore the condom", based on.... um.... huh what?

If you take the stories at face value, they paint the picture of a misogenistic womanizing individual, and casual rapist (im not sure how one properly categorizes rapists)

Then... there are also counter allegations of twitter posts (I didn't have time to get that far, I mean to look more later, but if anyone has any pointers on this... I would love to see) that contradict the stories and indication that neither Mrs A nor Mrs W came forward until they found out about eachother, and even that they may have a profit motive to have both come forward together.... and that things looked non-kosher enough that the initial prosecutor dismissed the whole case as not being strong enough to pursue.

So we are left with a third possibility... the women are independent actors trying to cash in, and intelligence agencies are running with it because all it takes is a little pressure.

Of course... who knows... maybe he did it? After reading some articles on the allegations tho.... it does seem to stink of sex and money fueled drama.

Of particular interest is the allegations made by the Assange defense team: "There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going to the police" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden )

So it sounds like which version is true is going to come down to the content of those messages.

If thats true, and the prosecution knows about it.... then.... well... it makes the international intrigue aspect of this look much more probable.

Because in some countries you can give consent and then withdraw it, which appears to be the case in the allegations (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/06/some-thoughts-on-sex-by-surprise/). Without saying whether the allegations are true, or going into the mountains of intrigue or motivation behind the case itself, look simply at the nature of the alleged crimes. In one instance a man said he was using a condom, then did not. What if the woman had caught an STD? What about the fear of wonde

The allegations include one woman "waking up" already engaged in intercourse, after having indicated that she did not want to have unprotected sex with him. Not sure how you defend that as anything other than rape. It COULD be a misunderstanding, there could be things that happened that she may have been unaware of (he may have thought she was awake and consenting, based on reactions she made while sleeping.... I have made this mistake, tho it has never gone nearly as far). This is why I made the stipul

True of most men at times. Just like women are often misandrist "man-eaters". Because being selfish and contemptuous of others is the default--and possibly the correct--attitude. Certainly it's what evolution wants of us: when women aren't bitching about womanizers, they are of course spreading their legs for them.

One thing I don't get about the alleged strategy being used against Assange, is how this brings him closer to US government retaliation (unless the sex charges themselves are the retaliation). Can someone explain that to me?

It's hard to believe he's thinking in terms of some kind of.. ahem.. extra-legal action, such as assassination. What, I'm supposed to believe covert US agents are capable of operating in Sweden but not just as capable in UK? Oh please. The whole point of moving him to Sweden has to

Is there an actual legal mechanism whereby Assange could be extradited to US?

Yes, they have had an arrangement for 'terrists'. This is the basis of Assange's complaint. And I don't see why it's not a 'wider issue of public importance' for the general public in the UK. 2-hop extraditions ought to be a matter of public importance, especially when the first hop is minor in charge.

You don't get it. He will got off on the charge from sweden but then the US will blow up his plane when he tries to fly home. The US would never blow up a UK airliners because of the risk that US citizens could be killed.Since no one from the US ever goes to Sweden it is a much less likely to be any US citizens on a Swedish plane when the US blows it up!Besides the Godless, oversexed, bimbo blondes that populate Sweden are terrible pilots and mechanics so it would look like an accident.

A rape accusation that amounted to buyer's remorse in the first place (as opposed to forcible rape), and would only be rape in Sweden.

In Sweden, Swedish law applies - the "would only be rape in Sweden" argument holds no water, as that was where the events (rape or no) happened. If it is just "buyer's remorse", he can use that defense there in the actual trial.

The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.

Usually you can only be extradited from your own country for crimes are also illegal in you home country. There might be in a crime in the eyes of Swedish prosecutor, but that doesn't mean there is any reason in the eyes of the English court to force him to Sweden.

The problem is this basic principle is being watered-down, especially for any persons that it suits the home country to punish.

The problem is that someone is pulling strings in the swedish prosecutor's office to blow this way out of proportion when the two women who have after the fact rage have their hurt feelings exploited by special interests from abroad.

"on the belief ". In contrary to religious beliefs which by definition cannot be proven wrong scientifically, this kind of "belief" is disproved regularly in Western society: extrajudicial killings of your own citizens in foreign countries, unlawful detainment, selective application of law, etc.

The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.

Right now the belief is that the Swedish justice system is being used as a mule to drag Mr. Assange into a country for which the United States has Extradition arrangements (unlike the UK, his current place of residence). The spectre of US political Manouvering combine with a charge that's somewhat specious has my BS meter go into the Red.

If Sweden were so concerned that "justice" was served, then they would publicly guarantee Mr. Assange's complete immunity from deportation to ANY country until after this

Normally you cannot re-extradite people, for this to happen the initial extraditor needs to approve the secondary extradition. Essentially, if Sweden would want to extradite him to the US (very unlikely), then the UK must approve such extradition.

The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.

However, you should be able to "escape unpleasantries" by cooperating with the authorities as you are detained for a month at your own expense during the investigation until you are exonerated and informed by the prosecutor that the case against you has been dropped and that you are free to leave the country.

If, after all that, they try to force you back to defend yourself against the same charges all over again then you fight tooth and nail against extradition, because you have pretty much no expectation of a fair trial anymore.

Unless we in the UK believe that the country is violating treaties by abuse of the warrant system. Say for calling removal of consent after the fact "rape", or issuing european warrants for "questioning" rather than arrest.

Seriously the UK does judge the correctness of laws overseas, and the possiblities of fair treatment (including blocking extradition where the death penalty, not legal in the UK, could be applied), hence we don't deport Christians under other country's blasphemy laws.

The problem is of course that he didn't do anything. It's exactly the same as what happened to Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He was accused of rape, lost his job and any prospects of a future career because of this, then sat in a courtroom for a few months until it was decided the evidence was too weak and the victim's story too incoherent for the court to reach a conclusion. So he was let go and now he has nothing. Which is exactly what the people who set up the "rape victim" intended to do.

In Sweden, essentially a rape-victim is not as stigmatized as in many other places. This means that a lot of people will talk about it openly. Your assumption would possible have held valid in Sweden 20 years ago, but the social climate changes.

I've met rape victims, that's how. It's not something they brag about next day on Facebook. They also don't usually throw a party and invite their rapist over so they can present him to their friends.

Your experience is insufficiently broad, and suffers from a terrible selection bias. How much experience do you have, for example, with women who are raped by their own husbands and don't report it? How many women do you estimate will admit to you that they had unwanted sex with a man who used alcohol and a little bit of physical force to overcome her resistance?

He wasn't trying to escape justice. He hasn't even been charged yet, he's argued all along that the Swedish prosecution could question him in the UK and then if there's a case for him to be charged they could go ahead and do that and try and extradite him based on the charges.

What he's trying to avoid is being extradited to Sweden without charge, and then being passed on to America. Particularly when in Sweden the case has already become too politicised because even their PM has basically pre-judged him in TV interviews.

Your assumption is simply that he'll get a fair trial in Sweden, but as with the TPB trial which was overseen and the outcome determined by a judge who was a member of a content industry political lobbying organisation, who was good friends with the content industry lawyers in the prosecution and was pushed forward at the behest of American pressure as demonstrated by leaked cables we know that Sweden isn't capable of ensuring that this will be the case.

This isn't a job well done by any measure but I'm not suprised, we in the UK are as much a puppet state of the US as Sweden is. When we can't even protect our own people like Gary McKinnon from extradition to the US even now, with a coalition government in which both leaders previously stated they were against his extradition though it's far from certain he wont be extradited still then frankly, Assange, a foreign citizen, had no hope- that much has been clear all along.

If Sweden just questioned him here in person, or via video link, and then charged him I'd be far more supportive of this, but extradition for a case with massive politicisation in the country trying to extradite when they haven't yet even been willing to produce solid enough evidence to charge him hence based entirely on an accusation? Fuck no, that's not justice.

Would you like to be extradited to a country like China because of nothing more than some random person there claiming you raped them when you went there on holiday despite a complete lack of evidence and no charge being put forward by Chinese authorities? Sure the US isn't China, well, for most people, but for someone like Assange whom the US makes exceptions to it's supposed love of liberty, justice, and free speech, it really is that draconian a situation.

So you meet a girl on holiday, you get along, and end up at her house for some mutual enjoyment. Things to ok but not great, and you're gone in the morning. 3 months later she accuses you of rape, an EAW is put out on you, and InterPol turn up on your doorstep at 4am to put you on an extradition flight to Poland. You're not going to jail, you're not even charged yet. You know it's a bogus claim and / or a fishing expedition, but your life is over anyway ("Arrested for rape, you say? That certainly sounds li

This is not about Assange and alleged criminal behavior, it's about silencing someone who made powerful figures look stupid.

The "crime" that he is accused of is almost never prosecuted in Sweden. This may be the first time in the history of the Swedish judicial system that anyone has been extradited for this class of offense. One of the accusers has left the country and is not available for either the prosecution or defense.

There is little chance of justice in this circumstance. He is being railroaded. The international banking system has shut down WikiLeaks. How is he going to be fairly defended? By some junior public defender? If you believe that you must also still believe in the tooth fairy.

The US is pulling every string they can to destroy Assange and WikiLeaks. I think they are planning to extradite him to the US or, if they think that they can get away with it, Guantanamo. Even if he ends up on US soil, they will give him the same treatment they gave Manning, which is real torture. Sleep deprivation, using the pretense of a suicide watch to keep the subject unclothed and with no bedding, multiple day interrogation by rotating teams of unaccountable "contractors", no real access to legal assistance. You don't have to inflict direct pain to effectively torture someone.

Just watch for Sweden to get some sort of sweet economic deal from the US as a reward of they get Assange. A new military base, some sort of co-development in the artic, joint mineral development. whatever. That's how the CIA got secret prisons in Poland. The Polish government got the promise of the anti-missile bases, which would have put a big long term chunk of US dollars into their economy. It's called bribery, and it works (at least in the sort run).

I almost can't believe that you expect "justice" in this relentless pursuit of Assange and WikiLeaks. Are you really that stupid? You really should spend more time over here in the real world, as opposed to whatever fantasy you seem to be inhabiting.

Julian Assange has offered to be questioned over video or phone conference, which Sweden refused. That strongly suggests that Sweden wants him in physical custody more than it wants questions answered.

As opposed to having to convict him in a foreign court in his absence where he'd be unable to put up any sort of defence if he didn't turn up? Because that's fair too.

Extradition has *ALWAYS* been allowed for suspected crimes. The problem is more whether the extradition arrangement takes account of whether the crime is able to be committed in both countries involved.

It's not like the UK are bowing down and throwing him to the Swedes in a game of catch - the UK police made them refile their order four time

Accused != charged != convicted. Extraditions are for the latter two. Or would it be equitable if a country -accused- you of committing a crime and set about extraditing you into their custody?

If Assange committed rape then they should charge him for rape. I'm not sure how it's supposed to be any more complicated than that. Sure, die hard supporters will never believe, but for the rest of us it'd make the whole thing smell less fishy

I don't disagree with you in principe, but it seems that Assange hasn't even officially been charged with anything in Sweden, it does seem a bit weird to me that someone who is just wanted for questioning can be extradited like that

In Sweden, being charged happens late on during the course of the prosecution. The defence were pushing the line that he was just wanted for questioning but it was an argument that the court rejected.

The bigger issue is that the case had already been thrown out, due to insufficient evidence. It was only after the details of the case hit the media and the case reappealed that they decided it was worth pursuing. For better or for worse, it is in fact Assange's identity as the founder of Wikileaks that is on trial

Thats what happens when you spit in the face of those in power. Is it a surprise to anyone that powerful people are gunning for him? Its all good and fine to be righteous, but is not much comfort if you are dead or rotting in Gitmo for 70 years.

The US has not shown any real or official interest in extraditing him to the US. Radio, Print, and TV talk show pundits don't have the power to issue warrants no matter how much they shout and stomp their feet. The only possible charge they could level against him would be receiving stolen property and even that charge is weak so why bother at this point. Why give this guy a bigger bully pulpit to preach his gospel? And you can not be held in a US prison indefinitely without an indictment and the amount of

And you can not be held in a US prison indefinitely without an indictment

Of course you can be held indefinitely in a US prison, as long as you define the prison as a "detention camp".

And please don't use Guantanamo as your basis for your BS.

The Guantanamo prison is not bullshit, it is a real US prison that does not obey any US laws.

If he was going to Guantanamo they certainly would not let little things like warrants get in the way. If the US really wanted him they would already have him.

No they know that kidnapping him in a friendly country like UK and Sweden would be frowned upon, so they just wait until they can get him by "legal means".
It is amazing to see that you don't seem to think there is anything wrong with the idea of US kidnapping foreign people without any warrants. Do you real

Guantanamo operates under a different set of rules which are based around the definition of an "enemy combatant" which is nothing more than an attempt to redefine POW status and POW treatment when the POW in question is not fighting for a recognized state. Under a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions the vast majority of these guys could be summarily executed when caught engaged in combat without any insignia identifying them as state supported soldiers. The US judicial system was not designed to

They were dismissed as such by the first prosecution authority in Sweden. That it is not a warrent for arrest, just for "questioning", also calls in to question the accusations, or at least the evidence for them. Lastly calling removal of consent after the fact "rape" is insulting to anyone who has undergone the real horrible crime, and should properly terrify anyone who doesn't get on with an ex partner.

That's why we have a justice system: to figure out if the accusations are bogus or not. I'm sure if we just sent people to prison based on public opinion, we would have a few more guilty people in jail. But we would have a HELL of a lot of innocent people in jail too.

Coward? He left Sweden legally, after asking whether there were any objections or challenges that would have prevented this. He was told that he was free to go.

He was also told, and agreed to, make himself available for future questioning if necessary. When it became necessary, he decided to refuse to return for questioning, a warrant was issued, and he began fighting extradition.

Coward? He left Sweden legally, after asking whether there were any objections or challenges that would have prevented this. He was told that he was free to go.

He was also told, and agreed to, make himself available for future questioning if necessary. When it became necessary, he decided to refuse to return for questioning, a warrant was issued, and he began fighting extradition.

Yes, because by then it was apparent that a frame job was in progress. Do you know that one of the two original accusers has already tried to back out?

In other news, I would like you to consider the following question: What do you suppose would happen to the world if, tomorrow, we invented a foolproof way to stop all whistleblowing?

Don't hate Mr. Assange because he has the courage to do what you do not. Be thankful that there is somebody out there who is willing to shine the light into dark castles.

It IS NOT apparent that someone is trying to frame him. The Swedish legislation is a bit different in this area and may cast a wider net in terms of definition of the crime than many other states do. However, IT IS STILL THE LAW, and Assange is not above it in any way.

He should be handed over based on the EAW. But, it may be said that it is absolutely ridiculous to issue an arrest warrant for having him show up for interrogation, which seems to be the case. Cheaper and more suitable would be a video link ba

Let me get this straight: he is guilty of being "Self-aggrandizing asshole"? He should burn.

It gets worse: he is doing it in a society obsessed with celebrities!!!! 4/5 of critics on slashdot repeat something along this line.

I don't know, but this buzzing in the back of my head sure sounds like my "skeptometer" warning me of something. PR stunt? Getting everybody, *today* of all times, to dismiss a guy because he craves for attention sure is weird. Maybe it's just me...

Assange is one man. Do you believe that HE IS WIKILEAKS? I know he certainly does, but he isn't.

In the mind of most of the ballast members of our society, Assange == Wikileaks. And you must admit that if Mr. Assange is successfully railroaded on this charge, then forever after, the media will refer to wikileaks as "Wikileaks, founded by disgraced sex offender Julian . ..".

Guess what, there was whistle blowing before Assange, and most of the time, it wasn't done by attention whores who care more about being in the media and spending other peoples donations than actually getting the truth out. And by truth I mean one of two things, either highly edited and manipulative to the point of flat out lying releases of specific documents or say... video. Or release a whole bunch of random documents that were simply stolen for no reason other than to be embarrassing.

Unlike you, I am not willing to speculate about Mr. Assange's motivations, or to wildly assert that I know all of the conflicting pressures and perils he faces. So I am willing to cut him a LOT of slack, because he is personally r

Yes, because by then it was apparent that a frame job was in progress.

That's absurd. Just because Assange supporters think he's being framed doesn't mean he's above the law. If the witnesses are questionable, that's a job for his defense lawyer. If he is innocent, and it's nothing but his word against theirs, that's not enough to convict.

Normally yes. In this situation, the odd behavior of the prosecutor, and then the other prosecutor, is sufficient evidence to conclude that something is very fishy. Given this, Mr. Assange would be insane to expect a normal trial that respects law and precedent.

Don't hate Mr. Assange because he has the courage to do what you do not. Be thankful that there is somebody out there who is willing to shine the light into dark castles.

This has nothing to do with the issue of Assange breaking the law by refusing to appear for questioning, and it's melodramatic and goofy, painting him as some courageous knight "willing to shine light into dark castles." Give us a freaking break.

I am sorry that you don't see the larger role that Mr. Assange plays. He is a hero to me, the only living hero I've ever had. He bravely stood as the lightning-rod for an organization that took on entrenched corruption. The ugliness in Sweden ca

Nope, that was the encrypted file which had its key leaked in a book recently. Now the US has nothing to lose by going up against him, especially since that incompetent or malicious idiot DDB deleted all the other leaks that had been placed on the Wikileaks server, likely including the BoA leaks.

And I'd say there's a good chance he'll be renditioned to Guantanamo or somewhere if he walks away from the court battle in Sweden. Jeppesen Dataplan, one of the shell airlines that runs the torture taxis, has an office there after all...

There is a difference between being constrained by others powers in a given area (so cooperating), and surrendering your own when you don't have to. It would be a new bootlicking low, and I wonder if the proud English will stoop so low.

I grant you Tony was appalling. A Labour PM marching into war alongside the US! Especially staying after the russians repo'd all the WMD thru Syria. And then putting down three backbencher revolts. Clearly shows the UK as an elected dictatorship.

However, Iraq was a security / military matter wherein the UK has important alliances with the US. Assange is at most a criminal matter, and appears essentially to be pure personal vengence from embarrassed officials.

Yes, I think my only interest in this case is if it is used to render Assange to the US which would clearly be a reprehensible act of revenge by the US and worthy of condemnation.

Other than that, good luck to him in explaining his offensive behavior towards the Swedish women. Its not likely to lead to very much more than a slapped wrist but it says quite a lot that he appears to have no cultural sensitivity, which may influence how we regard Wikileaks.

Granted his behaviour violates Swedish norms. However, he was obviously a foreigner, and these women persued him as such and for his fame. Swedish law might have expectations (ignorance of the law is no excuse), but these women could not reasonably expect automatic local behaviour.

It still smacks of entrapment. Small wonder Swedes themselves consider this a "sexfalla" -- honeypot. Pursuit is easy to prove -- they payed for his transport & other expenses. AIUI, they met him after he spoke to an audience.

For once a Bitcoin fan is right. One thing Bitcoin is good for is untraceable payment. Wikileaks would just have to set up a shell company to accept the payments since the credit card companies are now the Payment Morality Police. If child porn sites can collect membership fees with Bitcoin then I don't see why it can't work for Wikileaks.

Well, the government in Iraq paid attention to the documents and as a result, rejected Obama's pleas to keep troops in Iraq longer. In other words, because of Wikileaks, the US is pulling out of Iraq (at least if you don't count mercenaries etc). Assange deserves a peace prize despite anything else about him.

Yeah, but you'll never know this in the US, where apparently Obama is pulling out of Iraq. Both the left and the right seem to think this is true (For better or for worse), and it's rather astonishing the level of ignorance the media is promoting on this issue.

Guys, we got kicked out of Iraq at the end of 2011 in 2008.(1) Under Bush. Neither he nor Obama 'decided' to leave. The deadline has been Dec 31, 2011 for years. This is not some debatable fact. Yes, Obama campaigned on getting us out, but, um, he didn't voluntarily do that.

I've had like a dozen people present their opinion to be, about how Obama 'ending the war' is right, or wrong, or how Bush deserves credit, or whatever. And each time I just want to shake them and say 'Are you a total idiot? Iraq ended the war.'.

Iraq probably did this almost certainly because they got tired of our bullshit routine of killing civilians and then lying about it, but that is a debatable opinion. But it is indisputable that they did end it, not us. They held a vote, told us to leave by 2011, we asked them to reconsider, they did not.

1) Yes, I'm aware that, technically, troops can stay, and it's only immunity that's being revoked...but without immunity, no one can actually 'fight a war' in any sense, because they can't legally kill people, or detain people, or anything, without getting hauled into Iraqi court. So Obama has four choices for the troops: a) bring them home, b) pay them to stand around doing nothing, c) have them continue what they're doing, then get locked in Iraqi prisons, d) have them continue what they're doing, then fight off the police and military sent to arrest them, aka, declare war on Iraq.

He won't go to trial in Sweden. The moment he lands in Sweden the rape charges will be dropped and the Swedish government will be handed an extradition request to send him to the US for trail. And that was why he was fighting the charges.

Personally, I hope he does wind up in a fair trial in Sweden, I just don't think that was ever the goal.

Wow the paranoia is just rampant.1. Why not just extradite him from the UK?2. So the US controls the governments of the UK and Sweden but we couldn't convince them not to send the Lockerbie bomber back the Libya?3. I where donations to Wikileaks going towards his defense in a case about his personal misconduct?4. I have got to love how everyone is convinced these are trumpeted up charges. If it was someone on the right people would be sure he was guilty. If he was using money donated to a site they would be

He won't go to trial in Sweden. The moment he lands in Sweden the rape charges will be dropped and the Swedish government will be handed an extradition request to send him to the US for trail. And that was why he was fighting the charges.
Personally, I hope he does wind up in a fair trial in Sweden, I just don't think that was ever the goal.

You are right - something is strange about this whole situation.
Currently, despite what is being reported there are NO rape charges. The claim on the warrant is that he is wanted for questioning, not arrest. This is because the Swedish police do not have enough evidence for an arrest based on the rape allegations.

So he goes to Sweden, takes a good lawyer, the police ask their questions, and as far as I can tell, as long as the lawyer is competent, there are 3 possibilities. Julian
1) exercises his righ

Good for justice? They let him leave Sweden without being questioned because the allegations were completely without base. I'm not sure how exactly this is good for justice. If there were any possibility at all that a law had been violated, wouldn't you think that they would have accepted his offer to come in for questioning when he was still in Sweden? Or at very least told him he couldn't leave the country?

Everything about these proceedings has been marred by irregularities from letting him leave without

They were requiring him to pay his way back to Sweden for the questioning that they had originally declined. I'm curious where exactly he was expected to get the money from to travel back to Sweden given that the Wikileaks accounts had been frozen.

If they really thought he had done something, they should have just questioned him when he was still in the area.

And that still doesn't explain Interpol's involvement, they don't get involved in cases like this under normal circumstances.